We just had this discussion in Anatomy, and no one in the class could find anything bad about it. For those of you who believe that embryonic stem cell research is immoral, what about placental stem cell research? I'm not really up to date on this topic, but I would like to hear some viewpoints, especially the negatives since I can't find any.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Stem Cell Research: There's lots of good, but where is the bad?
- Thread starter DrNoobie
- Start date
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
Usually, the people who voice moral objections over stem cell research believe that viability of a fetus occurs at conception. They believe that once an egg is fertilized, it is human life and therefore sacred. In their minds, you cannot get stem cells by destroying a fetus to get them...even though said fetuses were destined to be destroyed anyway. These are the same people who are the ardent pro-lifers. I have yet to hear any objections to stem cell research using placental cells. However, placental stem cells aren't as useful for research purposes as say stem cells from a fetus (usually from invitro clinics) that are to be discarded. They are many generations older and don't have the functionality as early generation cells. I personally am a proponent of stemcell research, as long as you don't wait too long to harvest the cells, which isn't a problem using current methods and ethics.
XZeroII
Lifer
I am far from an expert on the subject and am in fact, quite uninformed. However, here is my POV.
From what I understand, if you take stem cells from a fetus, you kill the fetus. IMO, this is wrong. A child by any other name is still a child.
As for placental, I don't know any details on that, so some education on the subject would be appreciated.
From what I understand, if you take stem cells from a fetus, you kill the fetus. IMO, this is wrong. A child by any other name is still a child.
As for placental, I don't know any details on that, so some education on the subject would be appreciated.
Ardent pro-life folks believe that life begins at conception. To them, harvesting stem cells, even from a a non-viable fetus (ie, one which was not going to survive anyway) represents a slippery slope they refuse to go down.
Given the enormous potential of such stem cells to save life, I disagree. But I refuse to label their position as unprincipled. I just disagree.
Given the enormous potential of such stem cells to save life, I disagree. But I refuse to label their position as unprincipled. I just disagree.
LadyJessica
Senior member
Except that many many cells are discarded during in vitro fertilization. So that means those clinics are murdering kids by the hordes.
What about embryos which are merely 6-7 cells and only 3-4 days old, with no internal organs and no awareness. That's where many stem cells can be taken from, and those stem cells create new stem cells...rather like a stem cell farm. I know many pro-life people would be against this, I just want to know why. The embryos used are going to be destroyed anyway, why should we not put them to good use?
bigdog1218
Golden Member
The majority of stem cells come from the blastocyst stage of the embryo, which is 4-5 days after fertilization. The inner mass of cells at the center of this blastocyst are where stemcells are harvested from, which destroys the cells. Most of these embryos come from clinics for in-vitro fertilization, and rarely from aborted fetuses or umblical cords, though they do try to harvest some from there. The situation is there are thousands of embryos frozen because every time a couple wants to try in-vitro fertilization, there are generally 3-4 left over embryos, which right now are just being stored and could be destroyed in the future.
Edit: One of the problems of embryonic stem cells is a patients body rejecting the cells, which isn't a problem with adult stem cell research because the donor cells come from the patient.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Another source of the stem cells is from the umbelical cord after the bith procedure.
The cord is cut away, normally anyway, and the cord can be easily processed to gather them.
In this senario it's no harm and of course no fowl.
Except that the Religious Community likens it to 'Creation of Life is God's Work - you're Frankenstein.
Hell the Vatican tells people not to use birth control, and 'Abstinince is God's Way'.
The Pope and the Nun's aren't even players in a game where they tell you what to do, and
there are way too many Pediphile Priests - in my opinion, for them to tell others how to live.
The cord is cut away, normally anyway, and the cord can be easily processed to gather them.
In this senario it's no harm and of course no fowl.
Except that the Religious Community likens it to 'Creation of Life is God's Work - you're Frankenstein.
Hell the Vatican tells people not to use birth control, and 'Abstinince is God's Way'.
The Pope and the Nun's aren't even players in a game where they tell you what to do, and
there are way too many Pediphile Priests - in my opinion, for them to tell others how to live.
It is true that the most useful stem cells are embryonic stem cells, taken from embryos that are not yet viable. These are the cells that are termed "totipotent," because they have the potential to form any tissue.
The moral dilemma behind stem cell research is just another issue where people have problems with the idea of controlling life, like god would. The future of stem cell research could be a cure for degenerative tissue diseases or repair of some vital organs, but if the cost is taking a life, or even a potential life, is it worthwhile?
Most people are not as informed as we now are. In my experience, understanding of what stem cell research really is typically comes with support for it. Of course there are very informed people who opposite it as well. It's just like an issue of faith to me. I don't see how people can not support it, while many are on the other side. It's become hinged on bureaucracy, just like abortion, all while it really isn't something that should be. But because of funding, it is. And so now we have slowed our research, while countries like China are taking over.
The moral dilemma behind stem cell research is just another issue where people have problems with the idea of controlling life, like god would. The future of stem cell research could be a cure for degenerative tissue diseases or repair of some vital organs, but if the cost is taking a life, or even a potential life, is it worthwhile?
Most people are not as informed as we now are. In my experience, understanding of what stem cell research really is typically comes with support for it. Of course there are very informed people who opposite it as well. It's just like an issue of faith to me. I don't see how people can not support it, while many are on the other side. It's become hinged on bureaucracy, just like abortion, all while it really isn't something that should be. But because of funding, it is. And so now we have slowed our research, while countries like China are taking over.
My biggest problem with people who think using stem cells is too God-like are they same ones who want doctors to use all medical knowledge to either make non-viable babies survive, and to keep vegetables who would otherwise be dead in a "living" state. Bot of those examples seem more God-like to me.
myusername
Diamond Member
Actually, I have an interesting question. Well, at least it seems interesting to me.. You will have to forgive my lack of proper terminology, as I haven't studied this in, oh, at least a decade.
When the embryonic cell is just days old (anywhere from a couple to a couple dozen), the cells can cleave, resulting in two genetically identical embryos, which eventually pop out of momma as identical twins. The cells can cleave further, resulting in identical triplets, quadruplets, etc.
EDIT:and yes, I know "cleave" refers to cell division - I mean cleave in the nonscientific way, as in cleave AND separate.
So, lets take this (for example) 4 cell embryo. According to the pro-lifers, this is a fully intact human being. Regardless of whether you think someone who believes this is totally right or completely nuts, lets operate under that assumption.
We remove two of the cells, and grow them in a suitable medium until it is of a suitable size for harvesting (now lets not get vulgar here, I'm talking about a matter of days, not 9 months - aside from which, the cells won't survive that long in a test tube anyway). We could even double our output by splitting the two cells, and growing them as independent cultures. Come to think of it, is there a limit to how many times a culture can be split and regrown in a lab environment?
The two remaining cells are returned to momma, where they continue to divide and are carried to term, and momma gets her bouncing baby boy/girl, who is no worse for having had a small biopsy early on in his/her life.
Is the simple act of separating two cells from each other murder?
Is it creating new life?
How is it any different than performing a biopsy on an adult human?
Cells are removed, and the patient in question recovers from the procedure with no ill effects ...
When the embryonic cell is just days old (anywhere from a couple to a couple dozen), the cells can cleave, resulting in two genetically identical embryos, which eventually pop out of momma as identical twins. The cells can cleave further, resulting in identical triplets, quadruplets, etc.
EDIT:and yes, I know "cleave" refers to cell division - I mean cleave in the nonscientific way, as in cleave AND separate.
So, lets take this (for example) 4 cell embryo. According to the pro-lifers, this is a fully intact human being. Regardless of whether you think someone who believes this is totally right or completely nuts, lets operate under that assumption.
We remove two of the cells, and grow them in a suitable medium until it is of a suitable size for harvesting (now lets not get vulgar here, I'm talking about a matter of days, not 9 months - aside from which, the cells won't survive that long in a test tube anyway). We could even double our output by splitting the two cells, and growing them as independent cultures. Come to think of it, is there a limit to how many times a culture can be split and regrown in a lab environment?
The two remaining cells are returned to momma, where they continue to divide and are carried to term, and momma gets her bouncing baby boy/girl, who is no worse for having had a small biopsy early on in his/her life.
Is the simple act of separating two cells from each other murder?
Is it creating new life?
How is it any different than performing a biopsy on an adult human?
Cells are removed, and the patient in question recovers from the procedure with no ill effects ...